Flight Test Instrumentation for the FASER UAV Project (Invited)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Overview of Dynamic Test Techniques for Flight Dynamics Research at NASA LaRC (Invited) D. Bruce Owens*, Jay M. Brandon†, Mark A. Croom‡, C. Michael Fremaux§, Eugene H. Heim**, and Dan D. Vicroy† NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 23681 An overview of dynamic test techniques used at NASA Langley Research Center on scale models to obtain a comprehensive flight dynamics characterization of aerospace vehicles is presented. Dynamic test techniques have been used at Langley Research Center since the 1920s. This paper will provide a partial overview of the current techniques available at Langley Research Center. The paper will discuss the dynamic scaling necessary to address the often hard-to-achieve similitude requirements for these techniques. Dynamic test techniques are categorized as captive, wind tunnel single degree-of-freedom and free-flying, and outside free-flying. The test facilities, technique specifications, data reduction, issues and future work are presented for each technique. The battery of tests conducted using the Blended Wing Body aircraft serves to illustrate how the techniques, when used together, are capable of characterizing the flight dynamics of a vehicle over a large range of critical flight conditions. Nomenclature b = wing span c = mean aerodynamic chord CL = lift coefficient Cl = rolling moment coefficient Cm = pitching moment coefficient Cn = yawing moment coefficient f = frequency, Hz Ixx, Iyy,Izz = moment of inertia about the x-axis, y-axis, z-axis, respectively K = a constant k = Strouhal number (reduced frequency), ωl/V l = reference length M = Mach number pˆ,qˆ,rˆ = non-dimensional roll rate, pb/2V∞; pitch rate, q c /2V∞; yaw rate, rb/2V∞; respectively S = reference area V∞ = freestream velocity α = angle of attack β = angle of sideslip σ = FS density / MS density ν = kinematic viscosity ω = oscillatory frequency (2πf), rad/sec ρ = density 12-ft LST = 12-Foot Low-Speed Tunnel * Aerospace Engineer, Flight Dynamics Branch, M/S 308, Associate Fellow. † Senior Research Engineer, Flight Dynamics Branch, M/S 308, Associate Fellow. ‡ Senior Research Engineer, Flight Dynamics Branch, M/S 308 § Senior Research Engineer, Flight Dynamics Branch, M/S 308, Senior Member ** Aerospace Engineer, Flight Dynamics Branch, M/S 308 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 16-ft TT = 16-Foot Transonic Tunnel FOM = Figure-of-merit FS = Full Scale FTR = Free-to-Roll LaRC = Langley Research Center MS = Model scale N = Scale factor NTF = National Transonic Facility R/C = radio-controlled TDT = Transonic Dynamics Tunnel UAV = Unmanned aerial vehicle UPWT = Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel VST = 20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel I. Introduction Dynamic test techniques are used at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) to conduct research into the flight dynamics of aerospace vehicles. The test techniques are used for dynamic stability measurements, simulation verification, control law design, aerodynamic modeling, spin/tumble prediction, spin/tumble recovery systems, and flying qualities assessments. References 1-4 are a few of the many discussions of dynamic test techniques. Dynamic test techniques aimed at aeroelastic studies are not included in this paper. The categories of dynamic test techniques are captive, wind-tunnel single degree-of-freedom (1-DOF), wind-tunnel free-flying and atmospheric free-flying vehicles. Forced oscillation and rotary balance make up the captive category. These techniques are used to measure the damping and rotary derivatives. The measurements from the forced oscillation and rotary techniques are used along with those from the static tests to develop the math model representation of the aircraft aerodynamics (i.e. the aero-model). The wind-tunnel 1-DOF methods include free-to-roll and free-to-pitch. These techniques are used as intermediate steps to free-flying tests to assess unsteady aerodynamic effects on the motion of the model. These techniques allow rapid assessment of unsteady aerodynamics without the complexity of a free-flying test. Tests using 1-DOF techniques are typically a part of a static force test so the models may not be dynamically scaled. The wind tunnel free-flying methods are free-flight, free-spin, and free-fall. These models are normally dynamically scaled. The free-spin and free-fall techniques are almost exclusively used to study post-stall, equilibrium spin and tumble modes. Also, these techniques can be used to design the spin/tumble recovery systems. The models are typically outfitted with remote actuation of the control surfaces and recovery systems. The models used in the free-flight technique are instrumented to measure all of the aircraft states and air data. Also, they are equipped with a flight control computer so control and/or stability augmentation systems can be implemented. The models are flown with small perturbations about a 1-g, level flight condition. The free-flight technique investigates flying qualities (e.g. departure resistance) and control law effects up to a maximum trim angle of attack or until loss of control occurs. The outside free- flying techniques are drop model and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Both techniques are remotely piloted. The distinct difference between the two is that Fig. 1 Similitude requirements 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics the drop model is typically released at altitude from a helicopter. In this paper they will be generically referred to as remotely piloted vehicles (RPV). Like the wind-tunnel free-flight models the outside free-flying models are dynamically scaled and extensively outfitted with high fidelity instruments to measure aircraft states, air data, and flight systems health. The RPV technique is used to bridge the angle of attack range between the free-flight technique and Table 1 Dynamic scaling parameters for the free-spin/free-fall techniques. By adhering to the Froude scaling. appropriate scaling rules, these model techniques enable Parameter Scale Factor accurate predictions of flight dynamics across a wide range of Linear dimension N flight phenomena that are difficult if not impossible to Relative density (m/ρl3) 1 ascertain in any other way. Therefore, an aircraft program can Froude number (V2/lg) 1 use this battery of dynamic test techniques for a Weight, mass N3σ -1 comprehensive assessment of the aircraft flying qualities. Moment of inertia N5σ -1 Dynamic test techniques at LaRC are conducted in the 12- 1/2 Foot Low-Speed Tunnel, 20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel, 14 X Linear velocity N 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel, National Transonic Facility, Linear acceleration 1 -1/2 Transonic Dynamics Tunnel, and Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel. Angular velocity N -1 Although, the Langley Full-Scale Tunnel (formally, the NASA Angular acceleration N 1/2 LaRC 30 X 60-Foot Tunnel) is now operated by Old Time N 3/2 Dominion University this paper reports on a free-flight test Reynolds number (Vl/ν) Nν/νo conducted in this tunnel. The outside test techniques are Dynamic pressure Nσ -1 conducted at local NASA/FAA approved airfields and at NASA Wallops Flight Facility. Relative to static testing model size, weight, and inertia have significant importance in the dynamic test techniques. This importance is caused by dynamic scaling and/or hardware limitations of the dynamic test rig. Also, most of the test techniques require more complex and expensive hardware than static testing. In the case of the captive techniques the apparatus normally takes up more space behind the model causing support interference effects to be more of a concern than for static testing. In the case of the non-captive techniques rig vibrations, friction, and control surface position repeatability must be addressed. The discussion of dynamic test techniques will begin with dynamic scaling. A good understanding of the dynamic scaling issues is important in applying data obtained from these techniques. Then the captive techniques will be discussed followed by the 1-DOF techniques. Next, the wind-tunnel free-flying methods will be presented finishing with the outside free-flying techniques. II. Dynamic Scaling Full-scale predictions using sub-scale models rely on satisfying a set of similitude requirements. A dimensional analysis of the pertinent parameters for forces and moments was presented in Ref. 5 using the Lord Rayleigh method6 which results in fourteen dimensionless parameters that represent the requirements for static and dynamic similitude between model and full-scale flight. A summary of these similitude requirements is shown in Fig. 1. As can be seen, accurate predictions of full-scale characteristics require correlation of many, sometimes conflicting, similitude parameters. Although similitude scaling is very important across a range of applications, including aeroelastic modeling, thrust modeling, boundary layer effects, jet interactions, etc., the following will focus on considerations for rigid body dynamic test considerations. A progressive development of the dynamic similitude requirements evolving through geometric, kinematic, and kinetic influences as well as a flight-dynamics specific example of the Rayleigh method are given in Ref. 7. Various types of wind tunnels and test techniques have been developed largely to address the many similitude requirements. Traditional wind tunnel testing Fig. 2 Effect of Strouhal number (F-16XL, has tried to take into account all of the static model α = 30°). considerations, and also the angular velocity scaling. The 3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics frequency-dependence in the data denoted by the Strouhal number (k, or reduced frequency) was documented in the 1950’s, however this effect typically is not addressed in current testing or simulation modeling. The only test method currently in use to obtain k effects is the forced oscillation test; however this data typically is modeled as a linear derivative in non-dimensional rate for only one k value which is usually picked based on estimates of Dutch- roll frequency or short period frequency. Although this method worked well for airplanes in the past, the new realities of operating in highly non-linear flow regimes may have invalidated some of the assumptions and simplifications used previously.